I have been checking this book out, and am really liking Dr. Shigaraki's work. I do have one question though, A couple times in the beginning, Shigaraki states or rather implies that Amida might not actually have been a real person/being, but rather is a notion(his words)

"...This view of Gautama Buddha was adopted by lay householders. It slowly moved in the direction from the historical to the abstract, wherein Gautama Buddha came to be viewed more as a symbol of transcendence and eternity. Finally, it gave rise to the idea of Amida Buddha as an autonomous buddha, one of immeasurable light and immeasurable life that transcended even the human Gautama. These were the historical circumstances that led to the formation of the notion of Amida Buddha. We might say that Amida Buddha arose within the sincerity of the hearts and minds of people who praised and revered Gautama Budha after his death."

If I say, "This is my hat" The sounds that come out of my mouth are not the hat I'm talking about but you'll understand me perfectly and not give a second thought to the reality pr symbolism of the words I used. The Sutras are the means which the Sangha has passed down many different teachings and methods. They are the words we rely on if we've taken refuge in the Triple Gem. The Larger Sutra prescribes the easy path to Buddhahood. If we rely on it we must do so as instructed and without doubt. Otherwise the method will not work. No need to prove anything that can't be proven. That isn't in the prescription. Listen to the Dharma and accept or reject.

There's an audio link from the Institute of Buddhist Studies for a series of lectures featuring 3 speakers, one of which is Takamaro Shigaraki (I posted it on another thread). In it, Shigaraki admits that he and his teachers were often accused of heresy by the doctrinal authorities of the Nishi Hongwanji. His interpretation can be taken with a grain of salt and should be viewed as insights achieved through experience rather than official points of doctrine.

For what it's worth, saying there is no Buddha and there is no Pure Land was explicitly pointed out by Shinran as an understanding that falls outside the bounds of the 18th Vow. Reference

Whether it's true or not, the Pure Land method depends on the idea that there is an Amitabha in the west. Once he is abstracted out to some vague concept, the method loses much of its effectiveness imho. The Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra tackles this subject the best. It says that while focusing on that Buddha we fashion a Buddha in our minds, the Buddha representing the perfection of the mind, our minds not recognizing their perfected state slowly learn to, and yet we are able to see that Buddha and his land precisely because of the power of that Buddha.

The Pratyutpanna Samadhi Sutra wrote:The Buddha said, “If Bodhisattvas hear of a Buddha’s name and wish to see Him, they will be able to see Him by constantly thinking of Him and His land. For example, a bhikṣu visualizes before him the bones of a corpse, turning blue, white, red, or black. The colors are not brought by anyone, but are imagined by his mind. Likewise, by virtue of Buddhas’ awesome spiritual power, Bodhisattvas who skillfully abide in this samādhi can see, as they wish, a Buddha of any land. Why? Because they are able to see Him by virtue of three powers: the power of Buddhas, the power of the samādhi, and the power of their own merit.

“As an analogy, a handsome young man dressed in fine clothes wants to see his own face. He can see his reflection by looking into a hand mirror, pure oil, clear water, or a crystal. Does his reflection come from the outside into the mirror, oil, water, or crystal?”

Bhadrapāla replied, “No, it does not. God of Gods, it is because of the clarity of the mirror, oil, water, or crystal, that the man can see his reflection. His reflection comes from neither the inside [of the medium] nor the outside.”

The Buddha said, “Very good, Bhadrapāla. Because the medium is clear, the reflection is clear. Likewise, if one wishes to see a Buddha, one with a pure mind will be able to see. When one sees Him, one can ask questions, and He will give a reply. Having heard the teachings, one will be exultant and think: ‘Where does this Buddha come from and where am I going? As I think of this Buddha, He comes from nowhere and I am going nowhere. As I think of the desire realm, the form realm, and the formless realm, these three realms are formed by my mind. I can see what I think of. The mind forms a Buddha for itself to see; the mind is the Buddha mind. As my mind forms a Buddha, my mind is the Buddha; my mind is the Tathāgata; my mind is my body.’

“Although the mind sees a Buddha, the mind neither knows itself nor sees itself. The mind with perceptions is saṁsāra; the mind without perceptions is nirvāṇa. Dharmas as perceived are not something pleasurable. They are empty thoughts, nothing real. This is what Bodhisattvas see as they abide in this samādhi.”

For what it's worth, saying there is no Buddha and there is no Pure Land was explicitly pointed out by Shinran as an understanding that falls outside the bounds of the 18th Vow.

Hopefully people will read Heart of the Shin Buddhist Path for themselves, and compare it to writings of Shinran like the Kyogyoshinsho:

67 The Commentary on the Treatise states:

To aspire to be born in the Pure Land of happiness is necessarily to awaken the mind aspiring for supreme enlightenment.

68 Further, it states:

This mind attains Buddhahood means that the mind becomes Buddha; this mind is itself Buddha means that there is no Buddha apart from the mind. This is like the relationship of fire and wood: fire arises from wood; it cannot exist apart from the wood. Because it cannot exist apart from the wood, it consumes the wood. The wood, on the other hand, is consumed by the fire; it becomes the fire.

Please also keep in mind that Rev. Shigariki's book never specifically denies the existence of a Pure Land after death. Instead, he says that it's unknowable what happens after death until we actually experience it, and therefore we should focus on the here and now. The is relevant to Rev. Shigariki's belief that the relationship between Amida and ourselves, as well as the Pure Land and this world, is non-duality.

I have been checking this book out, and am really liking Dr. Shigaraki's work. I do have one question though, A couple times in the beginning, Shigaraki states or rather implies that Amida might not actually have been a real person/being, but rather is a notion(his words)

"...This view of Gautama Buddha was adopted by lay householders. It slowly moved in the direction from the historical to the abstract, wherein Gautama Buddha came to be viewed more as a symbol of transcendence and eternity. Finally, it gave rise to the idea of Amida Buddha as an autonomous buddha, one of immeasurable light and immeasurable life that transcended even the human Gautama. These were the historical circumstances that led to the formation of the notion of Amida Buddha. We might say that Amida Buddha arose within the sincerity of the hearts and minds of people who praised and revered Gautama Budha after his death."

- pg. 26

Thoughts? Is this correct?

Amitabha Sutra is definitely one of the oldest Buddhist sutra. I strongly disagree with Shigaraki's view point. We have in total 3 sutra emphasizing on Amitabha Buddha pureland in the west, One sutra on Medicine Master Vaidurya Prabha Raja Buddha in the east and also one sutra on Infinite Light Resolute Radiant King Buddha. Also Sakyamuni Buddha mentioned various other Buddha-lands like Akshobhya Buddha land, Padmamotra Buddha land, Ratnaketu Buddhaland and numerous other purelands though in not a detailed manner.

These perfectly Enlightened Tathagatas are really present in their Buddhaland, imparting dhamma teachings and teaching innumerable sentient beings. Amitabha Buddha is real and various other Mahayana Sutras do mention his pureland Sukhavati.

Sutras were written by great monks and not lay people or other ordinary people. It's not possible for monks to create imaginary buddha and create sutras about them. Even one of the sutra is translated by Ven. Kumarajiva whose translations are considered very accurate and there is also a story that Ven. Kumarajiva's tongue was not burned when his body was burned after his passing away because he made a wish that if he translated sutras correctly then his tongue should not burn.

So dhamma brother doesn't doubt Amitabha at all. Our kind teacher Sakyamuni Buddha taught Amitabha Sutra to help us during dhamma ending age to be born among Buddhas in place beyond any suffering. Amitabha Sutra is 100% legit.

For Dhamma practice try to avoid books and refer only sutras or trustable commentaries for notable sages so as to avoid any doubts. Buddhas never lie and deceive.

Hurry up and start practising, Amitabha is waiting for you in the pureland.